Enter your email to subscribe:

The League of Conservation Voters issued its Congressional Scorecard this week. This year, Obama and Clinton are both well above 50%, but neither were at the top of the heap, mostly because they missed 4 votes that LCV deemed critical. McCain, on the other hand, missed all of the votes. Overall, on a "lifetime" basis, Clinton and Obama are neck and neck Obama (87% v. 86%), and McCain is far below both (24%). So, the Green candidates according are Clinton and Obama. LCV Scorecard link

During the last year, Foreign Affairs published a series of pieces
on the 2008 presidential election, allowing candidates to frame their
foreign policy in their own words. Foreign Affairs Election 2008
I am reviewing those pieces for discussions of global environmental
issues, including climate change. I find this a particularly useful
approach because it allows candidates to move beyond sound bites and
into the substance of what they believe.

I expect to look at all of the current candidates: Democratic and
Republican. The first candidate I am reviewed was Barack Obama. Today's post is Hillary Clinton.

Here's the foreign policy of Hillary Clinton with respect to the environment (especially global warming) in her own words:

The tragedy of the last six years is that the Bush administration has
squandered the respect, trust, and confidence of even our closest
allies and friends. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the United
States enjoyed a unique position. Our world leadership was widely
accepted and respected, as we strengthened old alliances and built new
ones, worked for peace across the globe, advanced nonproliferation, and
modernized our military....At the same time, we embarked on an unprecedented course of unilateralism:..Our withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and refusal to participate in
any international effort to deal with the tremendous challenges of
climate change further damaged our international standing....At a moment in history when the world's most pressing problems require
unprecedented cooperation, this administration has unilaterally pursued
policies that are widely disliked and distrusted....

We need more than vision, however, to achieve the world we want. We
must face up to an unprecedented array of challenges in the
twenty-first century, threats from states, nonstate actors, and nature
itself...Finally, the next president will have to address the looming long-term
threats of climate change and a new wave of global health epidemics....

But China's rise is also creating new challenges. The Chinese have
finally begun to realize that their rapid economic growth is coming at
a tremendous environmental price. The United States should undertake a
joint program with China and Japan to develop new clean-energy sources,
promote greater energy efficiency, and combat climate change. This
program would be part of an overall energy policy that would require a
dramatic reduction in U.S. dependence on foreign oil....

We must find additional ways for Australia, India, Japan, and the
United States to cooperate on issues of mutual concern, including
combating terrorism, cooperating on global climate control, protecting
global energy supplies, and deepening global economic development...

As president, I will make the fight against global warming a
priority. We cannot solve the climate crisis alone, and the rest of the
world cannot solve it without us. The United States must reengage in
international climate change negotiations and provide the leadership
needed to reach a binding global climate agreement. But we must first
restore our own credibility on the issue. Rapidly emerging countries,
such as China, will not curb their own carbon emissions until the
United States has demonstrated a serious commitment to reducing its own
through a market-based cap-and-trade approach.

We must also help
developing nations build efficient and environmentally sustainable
domestic energy infrastructures. Two-thirds of the growth in energy
demand over the next 25 years will come from countries with little
existing infrastructure. Many opportunities exist here as well: Mali is
electrifying rural communities with solar power, Malawi is developing a
biomass energy strategy, and all of Africa can provide carbon credits
to the West.

Finally, we must create formal links between the
International Energy Agency and China and India and create an "E-8"
international forum modeled on the G-8. This group would be comprised
of the world's major carbon-emitting nations and hold an annual summit
devoted to international ecological and resource issues.

Call for Papers: IUCN Academy 6th Meeting

Metropolitan Autonomous University–Azcapotzalco, Mexico City
will host the Sixth Annual Colloquium of the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law, which will focus on poverty alleviation in the context of the law
relating to environment protection, through four overarching
themes:

1. The links between poverty and environmental degradation2. Sustainable resource use and poverty alleviation3. Poverty alleviation and environmental protection in an urban context4. Education, Participation and Environmental Justice.

A detailed list of topics will be made available shortly on the
Conference website at Colloquium link

Keynote presenters and papers for plenary sessions will be by
invitation of the Conference Organizing Committee. However, abstracts
for the remaining sessions are invited for consideration by the
Committee. Selected papers from the Colloquium will be published in
the Research Series of the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law, a
peer-reviewed Cambridge University Press publication.

Timetable for submission of abstracts and papers

Submission of abstracts: 30 June, 2008.

Notification of acceptance of paper: 18 July, 2008.

Submission of final paper for publication: 30 September, 2008

Final papers and abstracts submitted after these dates are unlikely
to be accepted for presentation or publication due to organizational
deadlines.

Annotated abstracts not exceeding 500 words may be submitted by
e-mail to the Conference Organizers at
coloquiouam-uicn@correo.azc.uam.mx with a copy to
Bernadette.Blanchard@uottawa.ca Abstracts should be typed double-spaced
12 point Times New Roman font.

The abstract should also include the full name and institution of
the author. If there is more than one author for a paper then the
presenting author should also be indicated. The abstract should also
include contact details including e-mail address, telephone number,
facsimile if available and postal address.

Style guidelines for accepted papers are available athttp://web5.uottawa.ca/weblaw/iucn/files/conf/style-guide.pdf

Selection of papers

Selection of papers by the Committee will be based upon a range of
factors including the geographical distribution of the authors, the
importance of the topic, the quality and originality of the topics and
the range of topics needed to fill the agenda for the Colloquium, and
whether the submitters are professors from institutions which are
members of the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law.

Yesterday's post on ExxonMobil (2/17/08) highlighted that it had
funded the Frontiers of Freedom and its Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP link ) during 2006, contrary to its claim that it was not
funding global warming denialists. You may wonder about the
context in which ExxonMobil made this claim.

Remember last year when the IPCC 4th Assessment
report came out – the Guardian wrote a story about American Enterprise Institute
soliciting result-oriented denialist analyses of the IPCC report and that
report included information about ExxonMobil’s funding of AEI. Guardian 2/2/07 Report. During conversations in late January and early February, 2007 with me and other bloggers, Maria
Surma Manka from Green Options [Giant Part I Post; Giant Part II Post], Jesse Jenkins from Watthead[ExxonMobil Posts],
Tom Yulsman from Prometheus[Post on earlier conversations -- I can't recall whether Tom participated in the February call, but I believe he did], Stuart Staniford from The Oil Drum [ExxonMobil AEI Post], Ken Cohen, ExxonMobil’s Vice President for Public Affairs
had assured us that ExxonMobil was no longer funding controversial denialist groups like Competitive Enterprise Institute and it did not fund AEI with the intent that they engage in denialist analyses. The first conference call occurred in late January and the second on the same day that the Guardian
story and the IPCC report came out.

Cohen spent considerable time before the IPCC report came out in January 2007 trying
to convince us that ExxonMobil was changing its Neanderthal stripes, truly
accepted that anthropogenic global warming was a serious problem, and was ready
to take a responsible role in the future discussions of how to reduce GHG
emissions. Admittedly Cohen did that in the truly diplomatic way of saying that
ExxonMobil had not effectively communicated its position that anthropogenic
global warming is real and that GHG emissions need to be reduced.

During the February call, Cohen
knew that the Guardian’s report about ExxonMobil’s funding of AEI and AEI’s
alleged solicitation of result-oriented denialist analyses threatened to
undercut public perception of ExxonMobil as a responsible actor. Indeed, those reports ended up on CNN. So, Cohen went
out of his way to schedule this call about the Guardian’s
allegations.

As
Maria recounted that discussion:

“We had no knowledge that this was going on,”
insisted Cohen. He explained that Exxon funds a lot of different groups, and
“when we fund them, we want good analysis." Exxon does not condone what
AEI did, but Cohen confirmed that it does continues to fund AEI, although other
groups like the Competitive Enterprise
Institute are not funded by them anymore.

Cohen assured us that Exxon is “trying to be a constructive
player in the policy discussion and not associate [themselves] with those that
are marginalized and are not welcome in that discussion.” The IPCC report “is
what it is,” and Exxon does not believe in engaging in scientific research that
preordains an answer. Cohen:

…that's the issue with AEI: Are they preordaining an
answer?…I can understand taking a market approach or a government
interventionist approach, but this is not a question of trying to find who’s
right or who’s wrong. Let’s let the process work.

But, I asked, how can you grant AEI nearly two million
dollars (n.b. slsmith -over the entirety of AEI operations, not annually) and not
know what they’re doing with the money? Turns out that Exxon conveniently funds
the “general operations” of AEI, not specific programs that would allow them to
track how the money is being used. Perhaps Exxon needs to think hard next time
before it funds an organization so clearly disinterested in constructive
solutions.

Cohen was consistently explicit in Exxon's
position that global warming is happening and mainly caused by human
activities. If that is true, then how will Exxon fight the huge misperception
that it’s still the planet's largest naysayer? Cohen conceded that the company
needed to do a better job of communicating its position on global warming,
rather than allowing a fact sheet or
news release on their website to do the work.

Cohen kept telling us that the 2006 contribution report was coming out, but
declined to give us any specifics about ExxonMobil’s contributions to AEI or other groups, but he said Competitive Enterprise Institute was no longer funded. Cohen
continued to defend AEI as a responsible, albeit very conservative, think tank
doing legitimate policy research. And frankly, I supported him on that score
during the calls because at least some of the work done by AEI is just that. And I was not nearly as skeptical as others about ExxonMobil's protestations of innocence. See my post on the AEI matter ELP Blog Post on AEI

As the quoted material above indicates, Cohen in early
February 2007 led us to believe that ExxonMobil was no longer in the denialist
camp and did not condone AEI soliciting denialist analysis (if indeed that’s
what they had done). He claimed that ExxonMobil no longer associated with
marginalized denialist groups. He suggested that the 2006 report would indicate
that ExxonMobily had disassociated itself from the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, which brought us the classic, sadly humorous “Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it
life!” TV commercials. You tube link to CEI Energy
commercial.

From
this discussion, it seems clear that Cohen knew precisely which “public
information and policy research” organizations that were funded by ExxonMobil
during 2006. Yet, while he perhaps sat with the 2006 report in front of him and
refused to release its contents, the 2006 contribution report later showed that
in 2006 ExxonMobil provided $ 180,000 to Frontiers of Freedom and the CSPP, the policy center it created with ExxonMobil's funding several years ago. P.S. Cohen denied funding CSPP in an e-mail today, but unless my sight is failing: CSPP is reported as the Science and Policy Center under Frontiers of Freedom Download 2006 ExxonMobil's "public information and policy research" contributionsIf that’s not supporting denialists and associating with marginalized
denialist groups, I don’t know what is!

Take a good look at the high quality analysis of global warming that CSPP provides:

(2) Dr. Ball's The Science Isn't Settled powerpoint
presentation - Dr. Ball is the Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship
Project which describes its first project on understanding climate change as
"a proactive grassroots campaign to counter the Kyoto Protocol and other
greenhouse gas reduction schemes." NRSP describes Dr. Ball as the "lead participant in a number of
recent made-for-TV climate change videos, The Great Global Warming Swindle."

(3) Joe Daleo's Congressional Seminar on global warming in
March 2007 devoted to disputing the IPCC's report and arguing that
anthropogenic global warming from greenhouse gas emissions are not a real
problem.

(4) CSPP's May 2007
rebuttal of Al Gore's testimony, which suggests there is no scientific
consensus that CO2 emissions are causing global warming

(5) a nonsensical piece on "Gore's Guru," positing that because Dr. Revelle, who died in 1991, had cautioned in 1988 and 1991 against drawing rash conclusions about global warming might still take that position. I call it nonsensical because Dr. Revelle suggested that we wait 10-20 years to see if the trends continued. We've waited and now we've answered that question: between 1998 and 2008 we witnessed incredibly dramatic global warming and the scientific community has spent the last 10-20 years studying whether indeed human-caused GHG emissions are responsible for much of that warming. We and ExxonMobil know its answer to that question.

Obviously, the blogosphere is not the only group worried about ExxonMobil's funding choices. Britain's national academy of scientists, The Royal Society, in September 2006 took ExxonMobil to task about its funding of denialist groups. Royal Society letter

Well,
maybe ExxonMobil finally pulled the plug on FF and its “Science and Policy”
center in 2007 (and so Cohen was just tap-dancing around the embarrassing, but
not on-going, reality of funding denialists). Although, FF's CSPP might survive: it apparently does have funding from two major tobacco companies!

Maybe ExxonMobil has rethought its policy on funding organizations whose primary contribution to the climate change discussion is to distribute continued attacks on those who conclude that the current state of climate science supports an effective policy to reduce GHG emissions. I’d like to think so – but we
won’t know until ExxonMobil releases its 2007 contributions report. I requested that Cohen release it to me; he declined.

However, even if it had
defunded FF and CSPP (and other denialist groups), I’m not sure I’d believe that ExxonMobil hadn’t found new denialist outlets to fund.

If
the Guardian and other media or the blogosphere produce a big enough stir on this story,
perhaps it will. But I am astonished that, just as it was selling itself as a
responsible player on global warming, ExxonMobil would act so irresponsibly and
so deceptively. And I am deeply embarrassed at my naievete in believing what
Ken Cohen and ExxonMobil were selling about ExxonMobil’s born again conversion
to a responsible position on anthropogenic global warming.

Watch out, though, ExxonMobil knows that the question is no
longer whether global warming is real, but what to do about it. You can bet it
is smart enough and devious enough to fund a lot of “public information and
policy research” that will muddle policy discussions about global warming
legislation and may assure that not much is done to regulate GHG emissions from oil and gas and that what is done doesn’t cut hardly at all
into ExxonMobil’s astounding profits: $41 billion for 2007 and almost $ 12 billion in the 4th quarter of 2007 alone. ExxonMobil profits post

I have a modest suggestion for ExxonMobil: do not fund organizations whose published information, analysis, and research on global warming or climate change has primarily sought to undercut the conclusions reached by the joint statement published in 2005 by 11 national academies of science, including the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, India, Brazil and China . That statement is linked here: Joint Science Academies' Statement: Global Response to Climate Change

Unless and until ExxonMobil stops funding the sort of stuff that Center for Science and Public Policy is peddling, I hope
that the new President and Congress will not believe a single word that is said
about global warming policy by ExxonMobil or any of denialist and anti-regulatory "public information and policy research" organizations it funds.

During the last year, Foreign Affairs published a series of pieces on the 2008 presidential election, allowing candidates to frame their foreign policy in their own words. Foreign Affairs Election 2008 I am reviewing those pieces for discussions of global environmental issues, including climate change. I find this a particularly useful approach because it allows candidates to move beyond sound bites and into the substance of what they believe.

I expect to look at all of the current candidates: Democratic and Republican. The first candidate I am reviewing is Barack Obama. I chose Obama first in part because I am torn between Clinton and Obama. Although I respect John McCain's leadership on climate change, I could not vote for a Republican after the 1994 - 2006 Republican congressional legacy and the debacle of Bush's presidency for virtually every freedom and human need. I also disagree with McCain's position on Iraq.

In his own words, Barack Obama primarily addresses climate change as a matter of global policy. He ties the US response to global warming to his overall foreign policy in this way:

Strengthened institutions and invigorated alliances and partnerships are especially crucial if we are to defeat the epochal, man-made threat to the planet: climate change. Without dramatic changes, rising sea levels will flood coastal regions around the world, including much of the eastern seaboard. Warmer temperatures and declining rainfall will reduce crop yields, increasing conflict, famine, disease, and poverty. By 2050, famine could displace more than 250 million people worldwide. That means increased instability in some of the most volatile parts of the world.

As the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, America has the responsibility to lead. While many of our industrial partners are working hard to reduce their emissions, we are increasing ours at a steady clip -- by more than ten percent per decade. As president, I intend to enact a cap-and-trade system that will dramatically reduce our carbon emissions. And I will work to finally free America of its dependence on foreign oil -- by using energy more efficiently in our cars, factories, and homes, relying more on renewable sources of electricity, and harnessing the potential of biofuels.

Getting our own house in order is only a first step. China will soon replace America as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Clean energy development must be a central focus in our relationships with major countries in Europe and Asia. I will invest in efficient and clean technologies at home while using our assistance policies and export promotions to help developing countries leapfrog the carbon-energy-intensive stage of development. We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: the United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia. This challenge is massive, but rising to it will also bring new benefits to America. By 2050, global demand for low-carbon energy could create an annual market worth $500 billion. Meeting that demand would open new frontiers for American entrepreneurs and workers.